Meanwhile, the sizable population of the sport that believes horse racing’s mainly a gambling activity reacts with a yawn. The Eclipse Awards doesn’t flow money into horseplayers’ hands; in effect, the awards are cosmetic. In addition, not having a say in the matter creates ennui. Why should anyone care about what fewer than 350 people decide about any issue anyway?
Well, acknowledging excellence in any field is a tried and true method of piquing human interest. Talent competitions per se (American Idol, Dancing with the Stars) lead the ratings on television. Industries dependent on the public’s adoration make their awards presentations spectaculars (Academy Awards, Espy Awards). The question, at hand, is whether horse racing’s awards are sufficiently grand, not whether they’re frivolous.
In comparison, Jess Jackson, whose horses have won the award in the last three consecutive years, has a net worth of $1.85 billion, according to Forbes Magazine. Although the world’s richest winemaker has put purses ahead of the fans’ admiration when placing his horses in stakes on occasion, his life wouldn’t change if the Eclipse was sweetened with money.
Regardless, a prize of $1 million for Horse of the Year and $250,000 for one of 10 other Eclipse Awards might create enhanced respect for the sport’s end-of-year honors. Short of opening the voting up to fans and discarding a few categories that are meaningless, no change could do more for developing national notice than a bonus? What exists in the current offerings besides the occasional charismatic horse such as Zenyatta, Rachel Alexandra and Curlin in the way of excitement? Absent them, there is little to pitch to the public. The Hollywood stars that would come out to make the affair a glittery evening are no longer involved. In addition, might attaching some cash to winning an Eclipse be reflected in the way owners run their contenders?
“I don’t think monetary rewards would materially affect how horses are campaigned,” offered Alex Waldrop, the president of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, a key functionary in the Eclipse Award program. “In virtually all cases, winners of Eclipse Awards have already been rewarded financially – via purse earnings and, sometimes, stud fees and re-sale value,” he mentioned.
Several awards programs, including the Nobel Prizes and National Book Awards, provide monetary prizes. Public recognition for these awards is greater than for the Eclipse Awards, and still their organizers determined that adding a bonus to the basic designation was appropriate. To that Waldrop astutely remarked, “It’s not the same as with other awards where previous compensation may not be nearly as commensurate with demonstrated excellence.”
Furthermore to Waldrop’s point, purses, in fact, represent the area least negatively affected by the slump in horse racing’s fortunes. Horse of the Year Rachel Alexandra earned nearly $2.75 million during 2009. Curlin amassed almost $1.7 million en route to his second Horse of the Year trophy; $5.1 million while winning his first. But making the rich richer isn’t what the idea’s about anyhow.
Although the Horse of the Year seems to always be one that’s financially successful, the Divisional Champions aren’t always. Horse racing is no longer a prerogative of the landed class. Putting something in the pocket of people who’ve sacrificed for years before finding the big horse is a payback the sport can afford, given a sponsor’s assistance (e.g. Cartier) or a surcharge on graded stakes purses. Having an Eclipse Award program that’s attended by $3.5 million in perks may also make more people outside of the sport take notice - in effect, a cheap new owner recruitment initiative.
This aside, the fact remains that winning an Eclipse is already a big deal – at least among the faithful. Like most new ideas, change is darn near impossible. Minds are set, mothballs fragrance the air. There are far more troubling things going on than tinkering with something that works to concern oneself with. "Eclipse Awards are very highly prized by those who receive them and coveted by those who do not,” Waldrop noted. “Season-ending awards are important to all sports, not just as a means of recognizing their best performers, but to provide a proper measure of historical context,” he added.
“My memories are my treasures. You can’t put this in dollars and cents,” said Hine, who remembers the evening she won the award as if her own moment in history was yesterday. “I can’t say what my greatest thrill in horse racing was,” the owner of Skip Away remarked. The evasion, albeit diplomatic, was indicative of what Waldrop meant.
Hine was thrilled beyond words when Skip Away won the Breeders’ Cup Classic. She shed tears of joy at the Hall of Fame in Saratoga Springs as her departed husband, the trainer Hubert “Sonny” Hine, was honored with induction. But Hine equated her Horse of the Year moment with a priceless experience.
“When they announced it, Sonny and I jumped up and the tears were flowing from the both of us and we embraced each other and kissed each other and when we got to the stage he wanted me to say something and I couldn’t,” she recalled with unbridled emotion.
Vic Zast observes horse racing and other interests on Facebook and Twitter.
06 Dec 2010 at 10:43 am | #
Skip Away......loved that horse..
First time I saw him run at Churchill, after watching him during workouts, I could see then that he would be something special,special he was…
Every year about this time is when I have my list of 2 year olds,and 3 year olds in hand.Process of checks and balance for the future races, would like to see more interest in coming months for turf racing,need more trainers to get serious about turf racing, not the attitude (maybe he/she will run better on turf)look at the breeding idiots.....
Russ
06 Dec 2010 at 01:08 pm | #
So if there was a monetary award for HOY & others, would it be counted in the earnings for that horse? Just curious. While I can see Mr. Waldrop’s point - any horse who does enough to be considered for an award has made decent earnings - anyone in private business knows you have to spend money to make money. If tracks are allowed to become run down, the owners have no right to complain when the stands are empty. The horse racing industry has spent so little on advertising, why should anyone expect other than dwindling numbers all around. Adding a monetary value to the award could be a way of increasing the buzz and gaining attention. I watched the awards last year and they were not badly run.
When the Eclipse awards came into being, there was no mechanism that would easily have allowed public input. With the advent of the internet, that has changed. There needs to be a way made for involvement of the fan. THAT would generate interest. It could be done in any number of ways - a certain percentage of the voting for HOY or a People’s Choice award. (I vote for Zippy Chippy - LOL!) But there are ways now to get the public invested and interested.
07 Dec 2010 at 09:37 am | #
I would vote to have the money come out of Waldrop’s salary, but I am guessing if it did happen takeout would just be raised to come up with the money.
09 Dec 2010 at 08:23 am | #
“Meanwhile, the sizable population of the sport that believes horse racing’s mainly a gambling activity reacts with a yawn. The Eclipse Awards doesn’t flow money into horseplayers’ hands; in effect, the awards are cosmetic. In addition, not having a say in the matter creates ennui. Why should anyone care about what fewer than 350 people decide about any issue anyway?”
“In comparison, Jess Jackson, whose horses have won the award in the last three consecutive years, has a net worth of $1.85 billion, according to Forbes Magazine. Although the world’s richest winemaker has put purses ahead of the fans’ admiration when placing his horses in stakes on occasion, his life wouldn’t change if the Eclipse was sweetened with money. ”
VZ,
It is the subtle and sometimes surgical sarcasm such as that supplied in the preceding nuggets that helps horseplayers like me survive the inevitable ennui engendered when some turf writers attempt to fuel interest in the annual activity that in their minds justifies their existence.
Actually, horseplayers do vote using cashable winning ballots—a process that might well spark enthusiasm for these proceedings as well. Perhaps each eclipse award vote should be accompanied by a substantial sum whose total would be split among those submitting winning ballots. In this contest, the favorite always pays off, but the participants can’t win – they can only lose less or break even at best when the vote is unanimous.
This might 1) eliminate the rare head-scratchers that occasionally gum up the works, 2) encourage voters to root for their selections, and 3) help turf writers focus on the importance of takeout—especially if applied in this situation to fund “putting on the show.”